JC may be expressing a thought my best friend expressed when he said, "Intellectualism is dead." There comes a point when professional philosophy becomes soulless, where the aim isn't really to find answers so much as to win some kind of chess match.

Not quite, but worshipping intellectualism or philosophy as truth is a pretty silly way to spend ones time at the university. Much better to learn the culture of rational and questioning thinking that a good university provides in the classroom, campus and even the parties.

I don't know what the Philosophy program was like where you went to school, but "worshipping intellectualism or philosophy as truth" sounds more like somebody's slur of Philosophy than the study of Philosophy, itself.

Maybe you found yourself in the middle of a bunch of poseurs. I can see that, especially in lower-division, introductory classes. Otherwise, it's more of a Hollywood version of things, a caricature nurtured by folks who took a different path.

If a person can study the humanities, or art for its own sake, let alone literature or history, I really don't see why a person couldn't study Philosophy as a discipline, without having to endure a series of unearned epithets.

Don't get me wrong. Philosophy is not for everybody. But if a person has an abiding curiosity about the cascade of ideas that have been expressed, altered, critiqued and developed over the centuries, Philosophy is a very rewarding program - not the worship of intellectualism.

In the meantime, I must confess a complete and profound ignorance of what you mean by "the culture of rational and questioning thinking that a good university provides in the classroom, campus and even the parties." If Philosophy, itself, isn't the origin of such a "culture of rational and questioning thinking," I can't imagine what would be. To be sure, it is more difficult to understand and discuss Kant or Heidegger than it is to discuss other subjects. I might even argue that it involves a bit more questioning and rationality than you'd find "at the parties."

In the meantime, I must confess a complete and profound ignorance of what you mean by "the culture of rational and questioning thinking that a good university provides in the classroom, campus and even the parties." If Philosophy, itself, isn't the origin of such a "culture of rational and questioning thinking," I can't imagine what would be. To be sure, it is more difficult to understand and discuss Kant or Heidegger than it is to discuss other subjects. I might even argue that it involves a bit more questioning and rationality than you'd find "at the parties."

For the record the philosophy program at the university I attended as an undergraduate was and remains a very highly rated program. I was not knocking the program or the study of philosophy as teaching rational and questioning thinking. Although as in any undergraduate program the emphasis was on rational not questioning. But for questioning Kant or Heidegger albeit not on a philosophical level the campus cafe was a better venue than the philosophy department. At the time Kant, Heidegger, Sartre and Nietzsche were hot topics at the cafes and parties. Certainly much hotter than the fortunes of the football team. But then that might be the mark of the kind of university I was talking about.

J'CarlinIf the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.

I probably ought to study up on Epicureanism; I have no problem, conceptually, with rational hedonism. In fact, I would think that it should mesh well with the virtue of selfishness.

Epicurean hedonism has suffered tremendous diffamation from the Christians over the centuries. Epicurean hedonism falls within the 'analysed life' principle: he taught his followers to discern between the different types of desires: unnecessary versus necessary, natural versus not natural, those that generate suffering when unfulfilled versus those that didn't. It's not losing one's mind in the objects of desire, like anti-humanist philosophies insinuate.

The philosopher actually lived a very simple, temperate lifestyle. He taught about enjoying the simple pleasures in life: the good cheese, good bread, good wine, good friends.

I'm not sure about selfishness being a virtue. Epicureanism concerns itself with autarchy, that is freedom, independence, but this is seen as an ingredient of human happiness. It's one of the three goods, another one being friendship (and, ergo, unselfishness), and the other one being the analysed life.

Epicurus also favored relationships between equals. I think he resonates with all the best aspects of progressive Western values and civilization.